On Saturday 17 April 2004 12:38, DoubleF wrote: > On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 10:50:29AM +0000, > > Daniela probably wrote: > > On Friday 16 April 2004 21:52, Lucas Holt wrote: > > > > Why would one need C++ if it's converted to C anyway? > > > > > > C++ is useful for programmers that believe in object oriented > > > methodologies. Some things are easier to do in C++ as well. It all > > > depends on the programmer. > > > > > > You seem to favor assembly languages. I've found that many people into > > > assembly never seem to get OO and therefore languages like C++ and Java > > > make no sense to them. Assembly *can be* fast but its not portable. > > > C was created to make unix portable. C++ was created to add OO > > > features to C. (as was objective c) > > > > I do program in C++ quite often and it does make sense to me. I know > > seven programming languages and which one I use depends on the program, > > as I find them all easy. OO languages can be optimized differently than > > non-OO languages, and when you translate one language into another, this > > advantage gets lost. > > > > I would rather say, assembly is fast and can be portable, if it's done > > properly. Yes, it is an unforgiving language, but I think beginning > > programmers need exactly that. > > I don't think that assembly is the best language to learn first. English > is:) (I mean, reading the draft standards is a good idea; though they > can't be regarded as manuals, they have valuable examples and notes). > > Learning assembly has the added advantage of knowing (at least > basically) what happens when you do a dynamic_cast<>(), for instance. > Assembly doesn't have to be portable to be usable this educational way. > At least for me, this is necessary to be sure of what I'm doing in C++. > > This doesn't mean that to understand a C++ program, I have to convert it > to assembly:). It just means that, when I face a problem, I can dig into > the details and find out what I've done wrong, etc. OO means a high > level of abstraction, and if part of the levels are floating in the air > with nothing to support them, you sooner or later will face problems --- > the problems of your misunderstanding how it works. > > I don't mean you have to write every program in assembly, but if you > understand how it works --- it certainly helps. YMMV.
That's basically what I was trying to say. Part of the reason why I love assembly is that I hate being limited and not being able to do *exactly* what I want. And if I want it to be fast ... I'd give up all the comforts of a high-level language even for no particular reason. Every programming language is fun and easy in it's own way. For me, ASM in not just a last resort. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"